D&D 5E What settings would you like to see full support for?

[The-Magic-Sword]

Definitely need to see some support for Dark Sun the UA mystic is begging for it, a gladiator fighter would be toasty, and Defiling/Preserving could be interesting for the arcane traditions.

After that, I want to see Dragonlance- the core books mention it so much and i've been a huge fan of it for so many years- there aren't any gods that I like more than the Dragonlance ones and their strict alignments creating such interesting philosophical questions.

Finally Eberron, I haven't got to play a campaign but steampunk is totally rad and my friends love so many elements from it- like warforge, airships, etc

 

[JohnLynch]

If this is an attempt to show Forgotten Realms is not the most popular setting than you've failed, but given your expert knowledge on surveys I'm sure you already know that. Those who like the level of support FR has gotten and want that level of support for other settings will of course not vote for FR. This should have been couched as a retrospective hypothetical to demonstrate FR isn't the most popular setting.

as for the question: I want Dark Sun and Greyhawk. Dark Sun because it has the greatest need for new mechanical options (psionics). Greyhawk because it would give us a snapshot of the setting post LG.

 

[Mercule]

Eberron > New Setting >= Greyhawk > Ravenloft > Dark Sun > other stuff > kick in the junk > Forgotten Realms

Of course, what I really mean is that I'd love to see a (slightly larger than) SCAG-sized book for Khorvaire that might also lead to a SCAG-sized book for Xendrik and Sarlona (each). Not sure whether that's "full support" or not.

New Setting rates slightly above Greyhawk because I'd enjoy seeing a 256+ page core book, which surely does count.

Greyhawk would be better served with a SCAG-sized book. The original box had about the same page count as SCAG -- though it probably used smaller font.

I'm interested enough in the others to buy a SCAG-sized book. I don't have much expectation of playing in other settings, at least not for long enough to warrant heavy investment.

If WotC pledges to not use the Realms for any table-top material (including AL and no UA support) for at least 5 years, I'll fly out to the offices and Mearls and Perkins can each kick me in the junk, once.

 

[sleypy]

I didn't vote because Al-Qadim is bundled with FR and there isn't a choice for other.

To be honest, I don't know if every setting needs to be a Living setting like FR. It would be nice if more adventures were set in places other than forests and caves. There are deserts, oceans and blasted land all over FR; having campaigns in different locales would go a long way to provide usable material for the other settings.

 

[ccs]

I vote for ALL.

I'm pretty setting agnostic. It doesn't really matter to me what logo they slap on it, all I want is quality product. Mostly stand alone adventures (not entire 1-15 spans).

 

[TerraDave]

As I think about, its just not that important.

I would like to keep seeing options through UA. And some way of getting more 5E monsters, treasure, and short adventures.

But there is lots of setting info out there, if you really need it. Tons of it that could be used in any D&D game. I don't think it should be a priority for 5E.

 

[Imaculata]

I don't particularly like any of the established settings. I'd rather see a new setting that is not afraid to do away with all the cliche Tolkien races, and also do away with all elf variants such as Drow. Get rid of them. Get rid of them all. And then write actual races that have a true culture, rather than only fan service appeal. I also wants to see lands and cities that have names that are credible, and are not just named after weapons and landscape features. Waterdeep, groan...

 

[MechaPilot]

I voted Raveloft because it is my favorite, but I really want to see support for Planescape and Spelljammer (those are tied for second for me). Modern (a.k.a. Urban Arcana) would make that a three-way-tie for second if we're counting d20 Modern's Urban Arcana setting.

 

[Lanefan]

Voted Mystara, would also have voted Birthright if I could have.

I don't particularly like any of the established settings. I'd rather see a new setting that is not afraid to do away with all the cliche Tolkien races, and also do away with all elf variants such as Drow. Get rid of them. Get rid of them all. And then write actual races that have a true culture, rather than only fan service appeal.

WotC will never be able to satisfy both of us in that case; as I'd rather see a setting where most (if not all) of the non-Tolkein races - the Dragonborn, the Tieflings, the half-Ogres, the Aasimar, etc. - get heaved to the curb at least as PCs.

I also wants to see lands and cities that have names that are credible, and are not just named after weapons and landscape features. Waterdeep, groan...

If you look carefully at real-life place names, many of them are based on one of the following few things:
- the extremely obvious (e.g. the Rocky Mountains, Iceland, Greenland [at the time]; Waterdeep would be one such as it has a fine deep-water harbour)
- not-so-obvious local geography (e.g. the name was once obvious in a different language [Mississippi is a twice-translated term that originally meant "Great River"] or has linguistically morphed over the centuries [unclear where London UK got its name but one theory has it as a many-times-translation of 'river too wide to ford'])
- a famous person relevant to the area (e.g. Washington DC or state, Vancouver BC or Island, etc.)
- what made the place significant to begin with (e.g. all the cities in England that end with "-chester" started out as Roman Castra (sp?), or camps)
- local mythology or religion (e.g. Athens being named for Athena, El Salvador (The Saviour) being named for Christ, etc.)
- it is named after somewhere else (e.g. New-anything in North America)

tl;dr Most places names are in fact pretty bland to start with.

I voted Raveloft ...

Raveloft? Sounds like either a dance venue or a setting for the kind of RPG Eric's Grandma might not approve of.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

WotC will never be able to satisfy both of us in that case; as I'd rather see a setting where most (if not all) of the non-Tolkein races - the Dragonborn, the Tieflings, the half-Ogres, the Aasimar, etc. - get heaved to the curb at least as PCs.

I'm not fond of those either. It seems to me like many of the D&D races are mostly just defined by gimmicks, game play mechanics and appearance, and not culture. I want to see well written believable races, and not check boxes like in a videogame.

If you look carefully at real-life place names, many of them are based on one of the following few things:
- the extremely obvious (e.g. the Rocky Mountains, Iceland, Greenland [at the time]; Waterdeep would be one such as it has a fine deep-water harbour)
- not-so-obvious local geography (e.g. the name was once obvious in a different language [Mississippi is a twice-translated term that originally meant "Great River"] or has linguistically morphed over the centuries [unclear where London UK got its name but one theory has it as a many-times-translation of 'river too wide to ford'])

The thing is, in real life those names change with time, into a blend of words that are no longer regular English. Besides, who calls their city Daggerford, or Skullkeep? Boy, it sure is fun living in the middle of a place called Desert of Despair or the Swamp of Doom!

- a famous person relevant to the area (e.g. Washington DC or state, Vancouver BC or Island, etc.)

If the established settings did this more often, it would be a great opportunity to write some actual history.

- what made the place significant to begin with (e.g. all the cities in England that end with "-chester" started out as Roman Castra (sp?), or camps)
- local mythology or religion (e.g. Athens being named for Athena, El Salvador (The Saviour) being named for Christ, etc.)

Again, things I see far too little of in the established settings.